Net Llama! wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Michael Hipp wrote:
However, there's nothing blind about expecting it not to work. Has it
ever worked? (On a foe such as this)?
In theory diplomacy worked for the Iran hostage crisis back in 1981.
There's also the conspiracy theorists who say that the Republicans were in
bed with the Iranians all along, and held off the hostage release until
Carter was out of office. But I digress. I don't think we've had any
other conflicts with Iran to use for historical analysis.
I've never considered the hostage crisis to be a successful example of
anything. (And even if the Republicans were that smart I doubt it
actually altered the final outcome of the '80 elections.)
I wasn't speaking only of Iran, but of any foe determined to commit
evil. I don't see much difference in the psychotic rulers of present-day
Iran and the other evildoers that seem to have been in abundance during
the last 100 years. Diplomacy never worked with any of them. At least
not as anything more than a way to stall for time (theirs or ours).
The example of Neville Chamberlain (sp?) is surely sufficient to forever
cast doubt on the probability of success with diplomacy in situations
such as this.
I'm going to go out a limb here and assume that Bush isn't going to do the
right thing, as he hasn't done the right thing yet. His track record
isn't any better than the UN's. At least the rest of the world still
doesn't hate the UN ;)
The rest of the world has a pretty lousy track record of judging
character. (But that's always been true of every people at every time as
regard their rulers.)
So, let's check our options and hopes:
1) War
2) Diplomacy
3) Bush
4) The UN
Now we have four things which can be counted on to fail.
This just gets better-'n-better. :-)
Michael
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
